Bulletin N°311



27 June 2006
Grenoble, France

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
A recent viewing of Charlie Chaplin's classic film, Mr.Verdoux, brought to mind the incredible pathos we in the west are now living. To be sure in the annals of l'histoire de longue dure, the European project of genocide against the Native Americans, like the European genocide against Australian Aborigines and later against the Jews of Europe, are but fleeting moments in the oceanic movements of history. All this is but poussière (dust), according to some scholars, who seem to speak only to God. All traces of these events are destined to disappear and, in time, they are to be forgotten, forever. Nevertheless, in short- and mid-term histories --the histories lived by us, who have only one another to speak with-- the past provides important lessons, not the least of which is that patterns of behavior reflect paradigms which sometimes characterize whole eras and which often govern behaviors, from top to bottom, both conscious and unconscious. The study of history alerts us to these paradigm shifts and prepares us to interact with them on a conscious level.

In Charlie Chaplin's film, Mr. Verdoux was a spoke in a wheel of a much larger machine and so are we to a great extent, even if we are not fully aware of the influences on our lives.

Attempts to construct artificial environments, insulated from reality with its open flows of information, can meet only limited success, at best realizing short-term goals, albeit very often with unforeseen consequences. On the other side of the equation, attempts to create extreme disorder in the environment so that new information is generated and exploited by all sorts of new systems to achieve all sorts of new goals has a better chance of survival than the artificial environments, based on censorship and control. "Stormy waters make for good fishing." was the observation of one 19th-century industrialist at the time of intense labor unrest in the United States. The recognition that rich and powerful people find new investment opportunities in the midst of disorder is not original, whether it is by provoking a labor strike at a time of overproduction and stockpiles of unsold goods, or by beginning a war to reduce unemployment and domestic discontents. These are tried and true methods reproduced time and again by the ruling interests in successive generations of capitalist society. Not to try to introduce disorder when you know you can get away with it would simply be stupid, if not downright irresponsible to social class interests, from one point of view.

The 9 items below represent a different point of view. By reading carefully these histories and commentaries on contemporary events, we understand better how the system works against the interests of greater humanity. The efficient but ultimately self-defeating methods employed by a small group of gifted and ambitious opportunists are decidedly immoral, and it is no wonder they must now fight an ideological battle against human interests, by dehumanizing great numbers of people, including the "loosers" in our neo-liberal paradigm and their intellectual allies who refuse to be "winners" in a game that will ultimately destroy the social and physical environment upon which we all depend. Speaking with one another about significant matters today is practically taboo, and we are left to try desperately to telegraph our true sentiments while listening uninterruptedly to their God telling us who we are --not an entirely pleasant encounter.

Item A. is a historical piece from Professors Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky on the deadly U.S.-Israeli connection, and the victims --both Jewish and Palestinian-- of this intentional deadlock that promotes U.S. military presence in the oil-rich area of the world.

Item B. is an article sent to us by Professor Edward S. Herman on the U.S. media coverage of Israel's historic attack by fighter planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967 against its strongest ally, killing 34 and wounding 171 American crew members of the U.S. Navy intelligence gathering ship, the USS Liberty while in international waters, about 23 miles off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula.

Item C. is a review of Michael Moore's new film, Sicko, which documents the deadly game of privatized health care services in the United States.

Item D. is a link to the National Security Archives release of documents on radiation experimentation and its effects on U.S. citizens without their knowledge.

In item E. we find recently declassified FBI files on the airplane transport of the bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia immediately following 9/11 (bringing to mind the old adage, "He who pays the piper calls the tune").

Item F. is a review of British historian David Cesarani's book, Becoming Eichmann, by American scholar Lenni Brenner.

Item G., from Edward Herman, is a report from DePaul University, where Professor Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure for his noble defense of the Palestinian people against Israeli aggressions.

Item H. is an article sent to us by the Holocaust historian, Dr. Lenni Brenner concerning corrections in the highly politicized history of European Jewry during the Second World War, emphasizing the well-documented and tragic Zionist collaboration with Hitler and American post-war strategies in the Middle East.

And finally, item I., from American historian  Dr. Jim O'Brien is an important message by Historians Against the War [HAW], concerning the escalation of resistance to President Bush's policies in Iraq.

We conclude this bulletin by inviting readers 1) to watch or listen to the Democracy Now! interview with Michael Moore, where he discusses the making of his new documentary on health-care services in the United States at : Sicko ;

2) to hear Dr. Linda Peeno's report of health-care-for-profit in the world of HMOs ;

3) to visit National Security Archive to see the newly released CIA records, known as "The Family Jewels" Report, which details 25 years of criminal activities conducted by the CIA and is now available on the Archive's Web site : http://www.nsarchive.org

The 702-page collection was delivered by CIA officers to the Archive at approximately 11:30 Tuesday morning, 26 June, -- 15 years after the Archive filed a Freedom of Information request for the documents. The report is available for download in its entirety and is also split into smaller files for easier download. Click on the link below to read the full report: http://www.nsarchive.org

Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Universit Stendhal - Grenoble 3

from Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky :
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007

This is a classic.



by Livia Rokach, Third Edition

[A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. Foreword by Noam Chomsky.]

Index and Foreword

To all the Palestinian victims of Israel's unholy terrorism, whose sacrifice, suffering and ongoing struggle will yet prove to be the pangs of the rebirth of Palestine...

First published in the United States of America by AAUG Press c1980, 1982, 1986 by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. All rights reserved in the U.S. Published 1980. Third Edition 1986
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Rokach, Livia. lsrael's sacred terrorism. (AAUG information paper series: no. 23) ISBN 0-937694-70-3


Foreword <http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html#FOREWORD>
by Noam Chomsky

Preface To This Edition
by Naseer H. Aruri
     (preface notes)

1.     Moshe Sharett and His Personal Diary

2.     Ben Gurion Goes to Sdeh Boker: Spiritual Retreat as a Tactic

3.     Retaliation for War

4.     "A Historical Opportunity" to Occupy Southern Syria

5.     Let Us Create a Maronite State in Lebanon

6.     Sacred Terrorism

7.     The Lavon Affair: Terrorism to Coerce the West

8.     Nasser: Coexistence with Israel is Possible. Ben Gurion's Reply: Operation Gaza

9.     Disperse the Palestinian Refugees

10.                        ... and Topple Nasser's Regime

1.     Operation Kibya

2.     And Then There was Kafr Qasim

3.     "Soon the Singing Will Turn Into a Death Moan"

4.     The Lavon Affair

5.     Israeli Newspaper Reveals Government's Attempt to Stop Publication of Israel's Sacred Terrorism

6.     Notes

from Edward Herman :
Subject: FW: US media and the USS Liberty
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007

American Media Misses the Boat :
USA Today and the USS Liberty
by Alison Weir

Capitol Hill, October 2003

It is a historic occasion. An independent, blue-ribbon commission is to release its findings from an investigation into an internationally significant 36-year-old attack on a US Navy ship that left more than 200 American sailors killed or wounded.

The commission consists of:

        * A former ambassador to one of the US's most important allies

        * A US Navy rear admiral and former head of the Navy's legal division

        * A Marine general, America's highest ranking recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the former Assistant Commandant of Marines

        * A US Navy four-star admiral, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the country), former Chief of Naval Operations, a World War II hero, and the only Naval admiral to have commanded both the Pacific and the Atlantic fleets

The panel is moderated by a former ambassador who served as Chief of Mission in Iraq and Deputy Director of Ronald Reagan's White House Task Force on Terrorism.

The commission announces explosive findings:

        * That the attack, by a US ally, was a "deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew"

        * That the ally committed "acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States"

        * That the attack involved the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts

        * That "the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the [ship] never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack"

        * That surviving crewmembers were later threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were "abandoned by their own government"

        * That due to the influence of the ally's "powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people"

        * That due to continuing pressure by this lobby, this attack remains "the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress"

        * That "there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history"

        * That "the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace"

        * That "a danger to the national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation" and that this policy "endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States"


Not when Israel is the attacking nation. Not when Israel is the "ally" to whose interests American needs are said to be subverted.

This extraordinarily high-ranking commission was reporting on the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Many analysts believe that the Liberty attack could be Israel's undoing --at least as far as US support is concerned --if Americans knew the facts about it.

But they don't. Here's why:

A search of hundreds of the largest news media in this country indexed by Lexis-Nexis does not turn up a single US newspaper that mentioned this commission, a single US television station, a single US radio station, a single US magazine. While it was mentioned in an Associated Press report focusing on one of the commission's most dramatic revelations, Lexis reveals only a sprinkling of news media printed information from this AP report, and those few that that did failed to mention this commission itself, its extremely star-studded composition, and the entirety of its findings.

Apart from a few members of the alternative press and the excellent Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not indexed by Lexis), this commission might as well not have existed as far as most of the US media is concerned --and therefore, the American public.

While the results of its investigation can be read in the Congressional Record, "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government," only an infinitesimal fraction of the American citizenry has any idea that a commission made up of some of the nation's most respected military leaders stated publicly and forcefully --on Capitol Hill --that a US president chose to sacrifice US interests and US servicemen (specifically, the 25 of the 34 dead who were killed after US rescue missions were recalled) to Israeli interests, and then ordered a cover-up of his actions.

Almost no one knows that the US's purported "special" ally tried to sink a Navy ship, and then quibbled for years over what it would pay in compensation to the widows, children, and parents of those it killed and to the United States for the ship it destroyed. (Thirteen years later it grudgingly paid $6 million for a ship valued at $40 million.)

The one piece of this story that did make it into the mainstream media has also remained astonishingly buried: testimony that provided the final nail in the coffin of claims that the Israeli attack --which lasted two hours; consisted of rockets, napalm, and torpedoes; and killed 34 Americans total and injured over 170 --was somehow accidental.

This testimony, which was read at the Capitol Hill event, was by Captain Ward Boston, the chief counsel to the one US government investigation ever undertaken of this attack, the Naval Court of Inquiry. This quickie investigation, overseen by Admiral John S. McCain (the current Presidential contender's father), who gave subordinates one week to conduct an investigation that normally would have been allotted a minimum of six months, found the attack to be a case of "mistaken identity." The report, which focused on the performance of the crew and the adequacy of communications, and which excluded critical testimony from crew members, is the keystone in Israel partisans' claims that the attack was accidental. All other US reviews of the attack that state it was accidental cite this investigation as their source.

For decades, Liberty crewmembers and authors such as James Ennes, Stephen Green, Paul Findley, John Borne, and James Bamford had provided substantial evidence that this conclusion was false. Numerous American officials of cabinet-level positions and the equivalent have stated publicly that they believed the attack to be intentional. Senior military, diplomatic and intelligence officials had long held that the magnitude and duration of the attack on the easily recognizable ship precluded any possibility that it was a mistake.

Captain Boston's testimony was a dramatic confirmation that they were correct.

In his testimony, Boston stated that he had decided to end his 30-year silence and was going to expose the truth: the Court of Inquiry conclusions had been a sham. President Lyndon Johnson and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, had ordered the court to cover up the fact that all the evidence had indicated clearly that the attack had been intentional.

Somehow the major media missed this, even though AP, uncharacteristically, had an excellent news report on it. There was no report in USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times you name it, and they probably missed it. Despite the significance of this new evidence, only a handful of newspapers printed it, mostly small, regional ones; a Lexis search a few days later revealed nine.

A major tree had fallen in the forest, and almost no one heard it, because the US media chose not to report it.

This mainstream media blind spot has continued, and with it an American cover-up of astounding proportions.

June 8th, was the 40th anniversary of this attack. There were moving ceremonies in commemoration of the fallen at Arlington National Cemetery, the Naval Academy, and the Naval War Memorial in Washington DC. Survivors placed wreaths for their shipmates, sisters remembered their brothers; mothers wept yet again for their sons.  Somehow CNN missed this; ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly news missed it. Despite the fact that the USS Liberty was the most decorated ship in American history; despite the fact that its commander received the Congressional Medal of Honor; despite the fact that a War Crimes Report on the unprovoked attack has been filed by the crew, and that members of the military elite are calling for a sustained, public investigation; despite the fact that a Naval rear admiral stated that the Liberty honorees had suffered "an unprecedented injustice at the hands of our very own Navy and government ;" the national media almost entirely ignored the Liberty, its crew, and its significance. The Washington Post, in whose backyard this all occurred, printed nary a word on any of it. Not a single mainstream news outlet reported the statement by former high-ranking career diplomat and Reagan appointee Ambassador Edward Peck comparing the treatment of Pat Tillman's death to the
treatment of Liberty casualties:

The US has just gone through a long, painful, costly and embarrassing
effort to unravel the cover-up of the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman
in Afghanistan. American servicemen will be punished for attempting to
conceal the circumstances of the accidental killing of a single American
soldier by his own comrades. It is totally unacceptable that even though
Israeli servicemen would not receive punishment for carrying out ordersthat
resulted in the killing and wounding of more than 200 of the Liberty's crew,
our government has steadfastly refused to permit the survivors of the
heaviest attack on a Navy ship since WWII to tell properly constituted
official investigators what happened on that fateful day.
This is obsequious, unctuous subservience to the peripheral interests of a
foreign nation at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service
members and their families. It should no longer be condoned.

While AP did have a story on the Liberty on June 8th, the report, oddly, was filed from Israel and was sent out only internationally; US editors never saw it. Where the US media did produce stories, almost all (like the above AP story) gave the Israeli invention --that "investigations" showed it was accidental.

USA Today: Covering-up the Cover-up

USA Today is a case in point. According to its website, USA Today is the nation's top selling newspaper. Its average daily circulation is 2.3 million and it is available worldwide.

USA Today has a history of missing stories on the Liberty. It neglected to report on Ward Boston's historic revelations; it missed the independent commission's Capitol Hill announcement; it refused to print an op-ed by commission chairman and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer (later published by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. ). In fact, in its 25-year history, it appears that USA Today had never carried a single news report on the USS Liberty.

On the June 8th anniversary, USA Today finally published a news story about the Liberty: "Coverup theory alive at USS Liberty reunion." The good news was that USA Today had finally discovered the Liberty; the bad news was that it relied on Israel partisans for the story's context and that it omitted major facts. Most troubling, it published a fraudulent statement that then framed the entire story.

While there are numerous objective US experts on this attack, USA Today's reporter Oren Dorell chose to use only those with ties to Israel: Michael Oren, who was born and grew up in the United States where he was active in Zionist youth movements, emigrated to Israel where he took Israeli citizenship, served in the Israeli army, participated in Israel's first invasion of Lebanon, and, most recently, served as a Major in the Reserve during Israel's 2006 invasion ; and Mitchell Bard, a former editor of the Near East Report, the publication produced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel's lobby in the United States. (None of this information was in Dorell's article). Despite the fact that the Liberty survivors have created an award-winning website containing first-hand testimonies and exhaustive documentation on the attack, and that there are additional websites with valuable information, Dorell's article mentioned only one website --Bard's.

While Dorell did interview crewmembers, his failure to include any of the massive evidence supporting their contention that the attack was intentional conveyed the impression that these survivors were simply traumatized conspiracy theorists. Worse yet, he preceded their statements with a sentence that contained an outright falsehood: "Israel has always insisted the attack was a case of mistaken identity, and 11 U.S. investigations over the years have reached the same conclusion."

While it is true that Israel proclaims its innocence, the second half of this statement is, quite simply, a fabrication.

The Myth of the "11 Investigations"

If USA Today had investigated this claim, continually put forward by Israel partisans, its editors would have discovered that in 2006 the reference librarian at the Library of Congress had investigated this allegation and found it to be false:

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional
Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and
unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence
that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the
June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.
Even earlier, in 2003, a writer for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Terence O'Keefe, investigated this claim and similarly found it to be hokum. In his subsequent article, also clearly missed by USA Today, O'Keefe discussed each of these alleged "investigations," as well as their alleged conclusions. Following are excerpts from his report:

        1. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry: The court concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate...[that the attack was] a case of mistaken identity." According to Captain Ward Boston, chief legal counsel to the Court of Inquiry, the court found that the attack was deliberate, but reported falsely that it was not, because they were directed by the president of the United States and the secretary of defense to report falsely. So the findings are fraudulent. Yet these fraudulent findings were the basis for several other reports that followed.

        2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Report of June 1967: This was an inquiry into the mishandling of several messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation into the attack. It did not exonerate Israel, because it did not in any way consider the question of culpability.

        3. CIA report of June 13, 1967: This interim report, completed five days after the attack, reported "our best judgment [is] that the attack...was a mistake." No investigation was conducted, and no first-hand evidence was collected. Then-CIA Director Richard Helms concluded and later reported in his autobiography that the attack was planned and deliberate.

        4. Clark Clifford report of July 18, 1967: Clark Clifford was directed by Lyndon Johnson to review the Court of Inquiry report and the interim CIA report and "not to make an independent inquiry." His was merely a summary of other fallacious reports, not an "investigation"... The report reached no conclusions and did not exonerate Israel... On the contrary, Clifford wrote later that he regarded the attack as deliberate.

        5. and 6. Two Senate meetings: The Committee on Foreign Relations meeting of 1967 and Senate Armed Services Committee meeting of 1968 were hearings on unrelated matters which clearly skeptical members used to castigate representatives of the administration under oath before them. Typical questions were, "Why can't we get the truth about this?" They were not "investigations" at all, but budget hearings, and reported no conclusions concerning the attack. They did not exonerate Israel.

        7. House Appropriations Committee meeting of April and May 1968: This was a budget committee meeting which explored the issue of lost messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation and reported no conclusions concerning the attack.

        8. House Armed Services Committee Review of Communications, May 1971: Liberty communications were discussed along with other communications failures. The committee reported no conclusions concerning the attack.

        9. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1979/1981: [Miami bankruptcy judge A. Jay Cristol, author of a book exonerating Israel] claims that the committee investigated the attack and exonerated Israel, yet he has been unable to provide minutes, a report or other evidence of such an investigation. Rules of the select committee require that any committee investigation be followed by a report. There is no report of such an investigation; ergo, there was no such investigation.

        10. National Security Agency Report, 1981: Upon the publication in 1980 of "Assault on the Liberty" by James Ennes, the National Security Agency completed a detailed account of the attack. The report drew no conclusions, although its authors did note that the deputy director dismissed the Israeli excuse (the Yerushalmi report) as "a nice whitewash." The report did not exonerate Israel.

        11. House Armed Services Committee meeting of 1991/1992: Though cited by Mr. Cristol as an investigation which exonerates Israel, the U.S. government reports no record of such an investigation. Cristol claims that the investigation resulted from a letter to Rep. Nicholas Mavroules from Joe Meadors, then-president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, seeking Mavroules' support. Instead of responding to Liberty veterans, however, Congressman Mavroules referred the matter to Mr. Cristol for advice. Survivors heard nothing further. Meadors' letter was never answered. The U.S. government reports that there has been no such investigation.

Ethics the USA Today Way

Armed with this information, I contacted USA Today about their story. They had committed two significant errors: one of omission and one of commission. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles, both types require a correction.

Specifically, it was unconscionable for USA Today to include the finding of the Naval Court of Inquiry, as it had, while omitting the fact that its chief counsel had  subsequently disavowed the inquiry. Nevertheless, given the fact that newspapers rarely correct omissions, and given the power dynamics of the situation (a national newspaper has a great deal, a reader next to none; the Israel lobby has a massive amount, the Liberty survivors barely any) I didn't expect USA Today to run a correction on this omission.

However, an outright, irrefutable error, I thought, was a different matter. When a statement is shown to be erroneous, papers usually run a simple, short correction in a corrections box. Since the paper's claim that there have been 11 US investigations finding "mistaken identity" is without any substantiation whatsoever, I felt it would be impossible for USA Today editors to deny the need to correct it.

I was right. It was impossible for them to deny this. So, instead, they (1) created a new definition for a word they couldn't justify (investigation), (2) defended a different statement, one from the middle of the article (which was also incorrect; I am now asking that they correct this one as well) and (3) stated that what they had meant to convey was not wrong, and therefore they didn't need to correct the statement that they still had not denied was incorrect.

It has been one of my more bizarre exchanges with US editors.

It is now more than two weeks since I first contacted USA Today about its need to run a correction. In that time they've run over 25 corrections. For example, on June 19th they were careful to inform readers: "A daily feature Friday tracking Barry Bonds' progress toward Hank Aaron's career home run record misidentified the home city of the Braves when they signed Aaron in 1952. It was Boston." On June 15th they took the time to tell the public: "A story Wednesday on the FX series Rescue Me misstated a family relationship. Sheila is the widow of Tommy's cousin." Nothing, however, on their erroneous reporting on an incident of profound geopolitical importance.

I am not privy to the internal workings of USA Today and the individual predilections of its writers, editors and owners, so I have no idea what is going on. I don't know if reporter Oren Dorell and/or his editors unconsciously or consciously tilt toward Israel, or whether they were simply sloppy. I don't know if their refusal to correct an obvious mistake is caused by defensiveness or arrogance, partiality toward Israel or unwillingness to trigger the displeasure of pro-Israel superiors or Israeli-centric  readers/advertisers. I don't know if it's that they prefer the explanations of the powerful to the facts of the powerless, or simply that they don't like to admit mistakes. I don't know if it's all of the above, or whether they're just too busy to bother and too jaded to care.

Whatever the reason, until American news media start being conscientious enough to get their reports on Israel right, Americans are going to continue being disastrously misinformed about one of the globe's most destabilizing, tragic, and potentially calamitous areas of conflict. When the media refuse to report on findings by a four-star US Navy admiral and the highest ranking Medal of Honor recipient in the United States, and ignore an affidavit of historic proportions, perhaps it's not surprising that they also ignore the 18-month truce conducted by Hamas despite continuing Israeli violence, the role in the current Palestinian strife played by Israeli-orchestrated policies of divide-and-conquer, and that they perpetually, just as in the USS Liberty attack, report the context dead wrong.

If you think it's worth a few minutes of your time to contact USA Today's corrections department, you'll find their email address reassuring: "Commitment to Accuracy" accuracy@usatoday.com (800-872-7073)

Alison Weir is Executive Director of If Americans Knew ( http://ifamericansknew.org/ ). She grew up in a military family.

See also, Assault on the Liberty, the book by James Ennes who retired from the Navy in 1978 as a lieutenant commander after 27 years of enlisted and commissioned service. He was a lieutenant on the bridge of the USS
Liberty on the day of the attack. His book was "editor's choice" when reviewed in The Washington Post.

from Truth Out :
23 June 2007

Michael Moore's documentary film, "SiCKO," focuses on the more than 250 million people who have insurance, but highlights those who are betrayed by it in their time of need. The horror of Moore's expose is not that health insurance companies are posting too much of a profit; it's that they are doing so at the expense of American lives. A coalition of nurses and doctors will co-host the film nationwide to promote bills in Congress that would fundamentally change the profit-based health system.

"SiCKO": The Profits of Life and Death
New film by Michael Moore


from National Security Archives :
23 June 2007

Radiation Experiments on United States Citizens


from Truth Out :
23 June 2007

Matt Renner reports: "Newly released documents reveal that the FBI suspected that a plane hired to transport members of the bin Laden family from the United States back to Saudi Arabia might have been chartered by Osama bin Laden himself. These new documents raise new questions about the FBI investigation into the 9/11 attacks."

FBI's 9/11 Saudi Flight Documents Release

 by Matt Renner


from Lenni Brenner :
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007
Subject: David Cesarani's Becoming Eichmann, reviewed by Lenni Brenner

Book Review:

Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a "Desk Murderer," by David Cesarani, London and Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2006. 368
pages. Glossary and Abbreviations to p. 372. Notes to p. 423. Sources and Bibliography to p. 442. Acknowledgments to p. 444. Index to p. 446. $27.50 cloth.
Reviewed by Lenni Brenner, Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 2007

avid Cesarani is a well-publicized British holocaust historian, but the inadequacy of his present work will be obvious to the field's scholars. He wages trivial battle against some commentators on Eichmann and totally evades others. He gives little important new information on Eichmann, nor does he correct his own previous errors. In spite of Da Capo Press's jacket claim that "Cesarani . . . reveals [Eichmann's] initially cordial working relationship with Zionist Jews in Germany," in fact he omits many of Eichmann's previously published statements that may embarrass Zionism (or Cesarani himself). Indeed, the true Eichmann rarely makes a full appearance in his latest biography.

Cesarani devotes much of his book to attacking ex-Zionist Hannah Arendt's celebrated Eichmann in Jerusalem report on his 1961 trial and her famous "banality of evil" description of him. Defending Zionism against her critique drives him to denounce her as "deeply prejudiced. She came from the German Jewish bourgeoisie that had long nurtured a contempt for the Jews of Poland and Russia." He rages against "her nasty, stereotypical comments about Jews. (p. 345) He complains of Arendt's accusations of Zionist collaboration with Eichmann, a topic his trial's prosecution didn't dare touch. "She claimed it deliberately avoided instances of Jewish cooperation with the Nazis, notably by Zionist organizations" (p. 348). But he doesn't explain why many eastern Jews agree with her description of Zionist misleadership. Indeed he doesn't dare quote her directly on the 1930s Zionist-Nazi collaboration, when Eichmann learned his lessons about Jews. . . . Hitler's rise to power appeared to the Zionists chiefly as "the decisive defeat of assimilationism". . . . Zionists too believed that "dissimulation," combined with the emigration to Palestine of Jewish youngsters and, they hoped, Jewish capitalists, could be a "mutually fair solution" . . . . The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organize a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods "made in Germany." (Eichmann in Jerusalem, pp. 58-60, 62)

In 1937, Labor Zionist Feivel Polkes invited Eichmann to Palestine. On 2 October 1937, the Nazi visited a kibbutz. Realizing he was a German agent, the British deported him to Egypt, where he eventually met Polkes, who offered to spy for Germany in return for loosened currency restrictions for Zionists.

In 1944, Labor Zionist Reszo Kasztner (a.k.a. Rudolph Kastner) negotiated with Eichmann, offering silence on Nazi plans to deport 750,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in return for Eichmann's promise to send prominent Jews to Switzerland. In 1946, Kasztner reported his activities to the World Zionist Organization. In 1953, the Israeli government on Kasztner's behalf sued a Hungarian Jew for libeling Kasztner as a Nazi collaborator, but the judge found him a collaborator. He was assassinated by right-wing Zionists but the Labor-Zionist dominated Supreme Court ruled posthumously on his appeal. He didn't collaborate because "no law . . . lays down the duties of a leader in an hour of emergency toward those who rely on leadership and are under his instructions" (Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 272). But he did perjure himself in a Nuremberg affidavit on behalf of an SS man.

In 1955, hiding in Argentina, Eichmann discussed Palestine and Kasztner on tape. After his capture in 1960, Life magazine published excerpts. On the kibbutz in 1937, he did see enough to be very impressed by the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I was myself an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable." ("Eichmann Tells His Own Damning Story," Life [28 November 1960], p. 22).

He described Kasztner as a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 or 20,000 Jews -- in the end there may have been more -- was not too high for me. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape" ("I Transported Them to the Butcher," Life [5 Dec. 1960], p. 146).

Neither stunning quote is in Becoming Eichmann. In 1961, Ben Hecht, a celebrated American journalist and Zionist, wrote Perfidy (Julian Messner, 1961) about the libel trial. His quotes from the judge's decision attracted worldwide attention: "Eichmann did not want a second Warsaw. For this reason, the Nazis exerted themselves to mislead and bribe the Jewish leaders. The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for Eichmann and his clique" (Perfidy, p. 179). But Hecht and Perfidy are not listed in Cesarani's sources and bibliography.

In 1983, my Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, which detailed Kasztner's collaboration and the libel trial, was published in Britain. In 1987, Jim Allen used it and Perfidy in writing his play Perdition. The Zionist establishment, using Cesarani's "Perdition, by Jim Allen: A Report," drove the play out of a London theatre, two days before its scheduled opening. Cesarani admitted that Allen cited "evidence of a symbiosis of Zionism and Nazi ideas about the volk, etc." But "Racial theories permeated all ideologies at this time, and it is banal to observe that Zionism was expressed in, and legitimated according to, the discourse available. Zionism could not have transcended the thought of the period" (David Cesarani, "Perdition, by Jim Allen: A Report," p. 5).

The show biz purge generated such attention that a nationwide, prime time TV debate was organized. Allen, Marion Woolfson, and I took on Stephen Roth, who worked with Kasztner, historian Martin Gilbert, and Rabbi Hugo Gryn, an Auschwitz survivor. Ultimately Cesarani confessed, in London's 3 July 1987 Jewish Chronicle, that the public thought the theatre "had been bullied into censoring the play." Nothing of this is in Cesarani's present book. The Essential Lenny
Bruce is listed in the bibliography for an Eichmann joke, but apparently Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Jim Allen, Perdition, and Cesarani's report do not merit mention.

Cesarani admits that Fritz Bauer, Attorney General of Hesse, West Germany, discovered that Eichmann was hiding in Buenos Aires. "Yet the Israelis showed remarkably little interest in pursuing the leads . . . they practically had to be led to the fugitive Nazi" (p. 14). When they caught him, they "skirted round sensitive issues such as the contact between Zionists and Eichmann in the 1930s, and the negotiations over the fate of the Hungarian Jews in 1944 that involved Ben-Gurion himself" (p. 14).

But this isn't fast breaking news. In 1973, Andreas Biss, who worked with Kasztner, wrote of his offer to testify against Eichmann, whom he had contact with in Budapest. A date was set until the prosecutor learned that Biss would defend Kasztner's role. The prosecutor asked Biss "especially to pass over in silence what was then in Israel called 'the Kasztner affair'" (Andreas Biss, A Million Jews to Save, p. 231). He refused and was dropped as a witness. Biss's book is in Cesarani's bibliography, but he goes unmentioned in the text.

Zionism is a major theme in Eichmann's life from 1935, when he read Theodor Herzl and studied Hebrew, through the 1944-45 Hungarian slaughter. It again became part of his life with the 1950s libel trial and tapes. Then he was captured, tried and executed by Israel in 1962. Reading him and about him raises questions for general readers and specialists: What made Zionism so attractive to him? Who in the Zionist establishment did Polkes report to regarding his negotiations? Why wasn't Israel looking for Eichmann after the libel trial? Had the prosecutor asked, what would he have testified about Kasztner, who Israel's high court declared wasn't a collaborator? Cesarani tells us that a Zionist historian "begged for a stay of execution on the grounds that it would folly to kill such a unique witness to history" (p. 320). Why weren't historians allowed
to query him in depth before his execution (which of course was justice served)?

In 1947-8, many UN delegations and much of world opinion supported Israel's creation because of what Hitler had done to the Jews. Few, Jew or gentile, knew what Zionists did or didn't do for the Jews. By now, Cesarani knows both. But he came upon Zionism's shameful relations with Eichmann as a Zionist zealot and has, for decades, consistently applied his ideology to the facts, instead of fact checking his beliefs. He grudgingly accepts the reality of repeated collaboration, but he refuses to treat it systematically. The 14 May 2006 New York Times is correct: Cesarani is "a writer in control neither of his material nor of himself." For all his rage against Arendt personally and her expose of Zionism, when it comes to interpreting Eichmann, nominally the topic of his book, the Times was correct: "what is striking is how far [Cesarani's] research goes to reinforce [Arendt's] fundamental arguments."

from Edward Herman :
Subject: [AcademicsforJustice] Finkelstein case
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007

I note that Abraham is an untenured teacher at DePaul, which means that he is putting his money where his mouth is with this piece.  Would that all faculty were as courageous.--Miriam

Finkelstein case: Academic freedom loses to Israeli lobby
Matthew Abraham

DePaul University's Promotion and Tenure Board's 8 June 2007 decision to deny tenure to professors Norman G. Finkelstein and Mehrene Laurdee has placed DePaul University on the brink of a legitimacy crisis that threatens to irrevocably harm the very fabric of a university that has placed social justice and activism at the heart of its Vincentian mission since 1898. What does it mean that this Vincentian University has denied tenure to two passionate advocates of social justice who not only met the tenure requirements of their departments and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences but clearly surpassed them? What would St. Vincent de Paul have made of this year's tenure and promotion decisions? Would he have agreed with them? From what I know of St. Vincent de Paul's life and work, I'm almost certain he would be distressed by what has transpired under the name of "Vincentian tenure standards," which are transparent code words for "proving one's ideological serviceability to the interests of the powerful," in this case DePaul's would-be patrons. Finkelstein and Larudee apparently failed that test.

Norman Finkelstein has written passionately about the plight of the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, indicting powerful elites who capitalize upon the moral capital of the Holocaust for financial gain while demonstrating indifference toward the suffering of those on the receiving end of US high-tech weaponry in the Palestinian occupied territories and south Lebanon. Larudee, the sister of International Solidarity Movement leader Paul Larudee who was jailed in Israel for a brief time, is a specialist on international organizations and developing countries. During their time at DePaul, Finkelstein and Larudee have inspired numerous students to create a better world, sparked vigorous debate on the issues of our age, and dared to speak truth to power, which is an era of clichs and political correctness is the minimum intellectual responsibility requires.

As an untenured assistant professor on this campus, who thought serious scholarship would find a site of articulation within the university named after St. Vincent de Paul, I have questioned not only my DePaul colleagues' commitment to academic freedom, but the motivations and rationalizations of many of my colleagues who remain silent in the wake of the grave injustice that took place on 8 June 2007, when Finkelstein and Larudee received their denial letters from President Dennis Holtschneider.

Outside the student center at the Lincoln Park, Chicago campus stands a giant statue of the famous 20th century priest, Monsieur John Egan, who asks, "What are you doing for justice?" At DePaul these days, it seems the students are doing more by way of affirmatively answering Egan's question than the faculty. Students have staged protests of some sort every day since the tenure denials were made official. At this moment, a handful of these students are staging a hunger protest outside the Lincoln Park student center. DePaul's students are standing on principle, and as one protester's rally sign declared, "You can silence our professors, but you can't silence their ideas."

Professional decorum dictates that administrative decisions, whatever they may be and regardless of whether or not they make sense, should be accepted with grace and without undue skepticism, and certainly without resistance, by the faculty. This situation, however, demands fierce resistance. I am calling on all of my DePaul colleagues to launch an intellectual revolt against the suppression of academic freedom on our campus. Although President Holtschneider maintains that academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul, and Provost Epps insists that the denial of tenure to Larudee and Finelstein were "faculty decisions," it is high time to call out these PR strategies for what they are: convenient smokescreens designed to appease, obfuscate and confuse.

Over the last three months, I have provoked, teased, begged, and cajoled tenured faculty at DePaul to be vigilant about the Finkelstein case, stating quite clearly that it was a test case that would have wide ranging implications for the future of academic freedom and academic freedom protections in the United States. Regrettably, only about four faculty members at DePaul took this warning seriously, with most believing the tenure processes at DePaul have essentially been fair and would, over time, weed out any early expressions of bias and unfairness. Indeed, some faculty members stated unequivocally that they would lead the charge if the University Board denied Finkelstein tenure. As one senior faculty member proudly proclaimed, "The faculty will revolt if Finkelstein is denied."

Now that the results are final and Finkelstein and Larudee have been the victims of egregious violations of academic freedom and due process per the faculty handbook, faculty members at DePaul must stand up, speak out, and not settle for a summer of fun, relaxation, and a convenient amnesia. It is high time for the faculty to identify and mobilize against the forces within DePaul university that conspired to deny Finkelstein and Larudee what they rightfully earned; organize in support of academic freedom by creating a solid lobbying effort against illegitimate external influences in DePaul's tenure and promotion processes; and perhaps most importantly, insist upon a thorough investigation of what happened at the University Promotion and Tenure Board (UPTB) hearings in May that led to majority votes against Finkelstein and Larudee's tenure and promotion to associate professor.

If a task force were formed to interrogate the faculty members who served on this year's committee, there is the possibility that someone would emerge to tell the truth about what influence, if any, was placed on the faculty members who served to vote in a particular way. This needs to happen not just to answer the questions that have emerged over the last two weeks about how the UPTB arrived at its decisions, but to prove that DePaul's administration has absolutely nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide, there is no reason why those who served on the UPTB would object to being interviewed by the task force. The administration's insistence that there is no appeals process only contributes to an already tense situation filled with suspicion about the UPTB's deliberations from last April and May.

That Finkelstein and Larudee received overwhelming support from their respective departments and unanimous support from the Liberal Arts & Sciences College personnel committee that heard their cases, only to have the UPTB reach entirely different conclusions about their scholarship than the lower levels in what essentially amounts to a retrying each case, suggests that the seven voting members of the UPTB either learned a great deal about the U.S.-Israel-Palestine conflict and international studies in a month's time, were denied crucial pieces of information, or were coerced to vote a certain way to produce a desired outcome. In any event, all three scenarios are extremely troubling.

One thing is clear: US supporters of Israel, who have not hesitated in the past to use psych-op smear tactics against individuals committed to upholding international law and the international consensus on the Israel-Palestine conflict, may very well have successfully corrupted DePaul University's tenure and promotion processes through DePaul's Board of Trustees in a blatant attempt to remove political opponents from the largest Catholic university in the United States.

Matthew Abraham is an assistant professor of English at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. He is guest editor of a forthcoming issue of Cultural Critique on the life and legacy of Edward Said. He was the 2005 winner of the Rachel Corrie Courage in the Teaching of Writing Award.

Contact your representatives and elected officials: use

For other ways to help, see http://BoycottIsraeliGoods.org

from Lenni Brenner :
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Subject: Photo of Nazi medal commemorating Zionist collaboration with Hitler


Photo of Nazi medal commemorating Zionist collaboration with Hitler
by Lenni Brenner

[It is only natural that contemporaries should be skeptical when they first hear accusations that Zionists collaborated with Hitler. Israel is constantly at war. The public projects Zionist pugnacity back onto the holocaust era and assumes that the World Zionist Organization opposed Nazism after Hitler came to power in 1933. In fact the opposite is true and it easily documented. In 1983, London's Croom Helm Ltd. published my first book, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.] www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm

A London Times review declared that "Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler's." The book attracted similar favorable scholarly comments, worldwide. Naturally specialist interest moved on in the subsequent decades, but today, thanks to the internet, unique visual confirmation of that collaboration has come to my attention and is presented now to the public.

I related how Kurt Tuchler, a member of the German Zionist Federation Executive, "persuaded Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein of the SS to write a pro-Zionist piece for the Nazi press. The Baron agreed on the condition that he visited Palestine first, and two months after Hitler came to power the two men and their wives went to Palestine; von Mildenstein stayed there for six months before he returned.... 

Von Mildenstein... wrote favorably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (9/26-10/9/34).... To commemorate the Baron's expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star."

I never located the medal. But in 2003 John Sigler, like myself an anti-Zionist Jew, found an image and description in a closed mail-bid coin sale. He bought a bronze version, which I examined at the 6/10/07 United For Peace and Justice anti-occupation rally in Washington.

A silvered token appeared in 2005. Silvering is often done to medals. It is about 1.5" in diameter and is thicker than a coin. There is no doubt re authenticity. John bought his bronze from the same respected coin dealer.

Recently John sent me a photo of the silvered bronze, for which I am very grateful.

The Star of David side reads:
        EIN NAZI FÄHRT NACH PALÄSTINA -- A Nazi Travels to Palestine.

The Swastika side reads:
        UND ERZÄHLT DAVON IM Angriff -- And tells about it in Angriff.

I happily forward it to the internet world, with documentation re von Mildenstein's visit and Zionist collaboration, and the first of the Baron's articles for Goebbel's journal.

Those readers who don't download attachments may still see the medal. Charlie Pottins has the photo on his website with an article on the 1979-80 furor when Britain's History Today magazine used the medal in publicity for an piece by Holocaust survivor Jacob Boas in the January 1980 issue.


Readers will doubtlessly have questions about Zionist collaboration. Many can be answered by going to Zionism in the Age of the Dictators at www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm

Or readers can contact me: < BrennerL21@aol.com>

Do that and I'll also tell you how you can get a signed copy of 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. I edited it in 2002. It has von Mildenstein's article and complete texts of many sources quoted in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.




Werner Senator, a leading German Zionist, once remarked that Zionism, for all its world Jewish nationalism, always politically assimilates to the countries within which it operates. No better proof exists than the adaptation of the German Zionist Federation, the Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland, to the theories and policies of the new Nazi regime in 1933. Believing that similarities between the two movements contempt for liberalism, 'vvolkish' racism and their mutual conviction that Germany could never be the homeland of its Jews could induce the Nazis to support them, the ZVfD repeatedly soliciited the patronage of Adolf Hitler.

The ZVfD goal became an "orderly retreat," Nazi backing for emigration of at least the younger generation of Jews to Palestine. They immediately sought contact with Nazi elements whom they thought would be interested in such an arrangement on the basis of a volkish appreciation of Zionism. Kurt Tuchler, a ZVfD Executive member, persuaded Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein of the SS to write a pro-Zionist piece for the Nazi press. He agreed on the condition that he visited Palestine first. Two months after Hitler came to power the two men and their wives went to Palestine; von Mildenstein stayed there for six months before he returned to write his articles.

In 1937, in exile in America, rabbi Joachim Prinz candidly described the Zionist mood in the 1st months of 1933:

Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly
represent the Jews in dealings with the Nazi government. We all felt
sure that one day the government would arrange a round table
conference with the Jews, at which after the riots and atrocities of the
revolution had passed the neew status of German Jewry could be
considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was
no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as
seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was
our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish
question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal!.... In a statement
notable for its pride and dignity, we called for a conference. [1]


The ZVfD's 6/21/33 secret memorandum asked if they could


be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a
solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National
Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence .... Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition....
[A]n answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry.... Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group.
For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life....
On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of
race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us
too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible....
Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere
relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities.
Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group....
We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a
group-conscious Jewry and the German state.... For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people. Boycott propaganda, such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways, is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build....
Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state. [2]


Talk of 'blut' reached Wagnerian proportions in the 8/4/33 issue of the Jüdische Rundschau, the ZVfD organ. "Rasse als Kulturfaktor" argued that Jews should not merely accept silently the dictates of their new masters; they had to realize that race separation was wholly to the good:


We who live here as a 'foreign race' have to respect racial consciousness
and the racial interest of the German people absolutely. This however does not preclude a peaceful living together of people of different racial membership. The smaller the possibility of an undesirable mixture, so much less is there need for 'racial protection'.... Only rationalist newspapers who have lost feeling for the deeper reasons and profundities of the soul, and for the origins of communal consciousness, could put aside ancestry as simply in the realm of natural history. [3]


Prior to 1933, German Zionism was an isolated bourgeois political cult. While leftists were fighting the brownshirts in the streets, Zionists collected money for trees in Palestine. Suddenly in 1933 this small group conceived of itself as properly anointed by history to negotiate secretly with the Nazis, to oppose the vast mass of world Jewry who wanted to resist Hitler, all in the hope of obtaining the support of the enemy of their people for the building of their state in Palestine. They were wholly deluded. No modus vivendi was ever even remotely possible between Hitler and the Jews. Given their failure to resist during Weimar, and given their race theories, it was inevitable that they would end up as Nazism's Jewish jackals.

Economic collaboration began in August 1933 with the Ha'avara (Transfer) agreement between Berlin and the World Zionist Organization. Jews could put money into a German bank. It was used to buy export items which were sold by the WZO, usually but not exclusively in Palestine. When the emigres arrived there, they received payment for the goods that they purchased, after they had been sold.

Ha'avara's attraction remained the same throughout its operation. It was the least painful way of shipping Jewish wealth out of Germany. However the Nazis determined the rules, and by 1938 average users lost between 30% and 50% of their money. Nevertheless, this was three times, and eventually five times, better than losses endured by Jews whose money went to other destinations. [4]

Some 60% of all capital invested in Palestine between August 1933 and 9/1/39, the beginning of WW ll, went through Ha'avara. In addition, Britain set an annual Jewish immigrant quota, using the country's weak economic absorptive capacity to limit their number; but "capitalists" bringing in over $5,000 were allowed in over quota. The 16,529 capitalists were an additional source of immigrants. Their capital gave Palestine artificial prosperity in the midst of the worldwide Depression.

The WZO solicited new customers for Germany in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Zionists exported oranges to Belgium and Holland using Nazi ships. [5] By 1936 the WZO began to sell Hitler's goods in Britain. [6]

In 1937, the Labor Zionist Haganah, the WZO's underground military arm under the British mandate, negotiated directly with the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the SS Security Service. Haganah agent Feivel Polkes arrived in Berlin on 2/26/37. Adolf Eichmann, von Mildenstein's protege, was his negotiating partner. The Eichmann-Polkes conversations, in a report by Eichmann's superior, were in SS files captured after WW ll.


Polkes is a national-Zionist. He is against all Jews who are opposed to the
erection of a Jewish state in Palestine. As a Haganah man he fights against Communism and all aims of Arab-British friendship.... He noted that the Haganah's goal is to reach, as soon as possible, a Jewish majority in Palestine.
Therefore he worked, as this objective required, with or against the British
Intelligence Service.... He declared himself willing to work for Germany in
the form of providing intelligence as long as this does not oppose his own
political goals. Among other things he would support German foreign policy in the Near East. He would try to find oil sources for the German Reich without affecting British spheres of interest if the German monetary regulations were eased for Jewish emigrants to Palestine. [7]


Berlin didn't take up the Haganah offer, but patronage of Zionism continued. The SS was the most pro-Zionist Nazi element. Other Nazis even called them "soft" on Jews. Von Mildenstein, the head of the SD's Jewish Department, studied Hebrew. Maps on his office walls showed rapidly increasing strength of German Zionism. [8]

In May 1935, SD chief Reinhardt Heydrich wrote an article, "The Visible Enemy," for Das Schwarze Korps, the SS official organ: "The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them." [9]

In 1934, SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler was presented with a "Situation Report Jewish Question" by his staff. The vast majority of Jews sttill considered themselves Germans and were determined to stay. As force couldn't then be used, for fear of international repercussions, the way to break down their resistance was to instill distinctive Jewish identity amongst them by promoting Jewish schools, athletic teams, art and music, and Hebrew. Combined with Zionist occupational retraining centers, this would induce them to abandon their homeland. Nazi policy was therefore to increase support for Zionism, so that Jews would see that the way to ward off worse trouble was to join the movement.

Zionists were still persecuted as Jews. But within that framework it was possible to ease the pressure. On 1/28/35, the Bavarian Gestapo circularized the regular police that henceforward:

members of the Zionist organizations are, in view of their activities directed
towards emigration to Palestine, not to be treated with the same strictness
which is necessary towards the members of the German-Jewish organizations
[assimilationists]. [10]


Prinz sorrowfully admitted that

It was very difficult for the Zionists to operate. It was morally disturbing
to seem to be considered as the favoured children of the Nazi Government,
particularly when it dissolved the anti-Zionist youth groups, and seemed in other
ways to prefer the Zionists. The Nazis asked for a 'more Zionist behaviour.'[11]

The Rundschau was banned on at least three occasions between 1933 and November 1938, when the regime finally closed down the ZVfD's headquarters after Kristallnacht. After 1935 Labor Zionist emissaries were barred from the country. But even then Palestinian Zionist leaders were allowed to enter for specific meetings. Arthur Ruppin was granted permission to enter Germany on 3/20/38, to address a mass indoor Berlin rally on the effects of the post-1936 Arab revolt in Palestine. Zionists had far less trouble than their assimilationist rivals, and Communists were sent to concentration camps while the Rundschau was hawked in Berlin's streets.

Today's Zionists can't claim that their predecessors were duped by Hitler. They conned themselves. His theories on Zionism, including the Jews' alleged inability to create a state, had been there, in plain German, since publication of his Mein Kampf in 1926. They convinced themselves that, as racists against mixed marriage, believing that Jews were aliens in Germany, Hitler would see them as the only "honest partners" for a diplomatic detente. [12]

Nor can it be claimed that the WZO collaborated to save Jewish lives. After the 1938 Kristalnacht pogrom, London, hoping to ease pressure for increased Jewish immigration into Palestine, proposed that thousands of children be taken into Britain. But David Ben-Gurion, later Israel's first Prime Minister in 1948, denounced the plan on 12/7/38:


If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany
by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting
them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For
we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history
of the People of Israel. [13]


Five days later he warned the WZO Executive:


If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from
concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine,
mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people
will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism
will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in
Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion.
If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian
problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism. [14]


1. Joachim Prinz, "Zionism under the Nazi Government," Young Zionist (London, November 1937), p. 18
2. Lucy Dawidowicz (ed.), A Holocaust Reader, pp. 150-53. "Rasse als Kulturfaktor," Jüdische Rundschau (August 4, 1933), p. 392
4. Mark Wischnitzer, To Dwell in Safety, p. 212
5. "Reflections," Palestine Post, (November 14, 1938), p. 6
6. Yehuda Bauer, My Brother's Keeper, p. 129
7. David Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics 1889-1945, Bar-Ilan university, Appendix (German): Geheime Kommandosache Bericht, pp. 301-2
8. Heinz Hohne, The Order of the Death's Head, p. 333
9. Ibid and Karl Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, pp. 193-4
10. Kurt Grossmann, "Zionists and Non-Zionists under Nazi Rule in the 1930s," Herzl Yearbook, vol. VI, p. 340
11. Prinz, Ibid
12. Jacob Boas, The Jews of Germany: Self-Perception in the Nazi Era as Reflected in the German Jewish Press 1933-1938, Ph.D. thesis, University of
California, Riverside, (1977), p. 111
13. Yoav Gelber, "Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42)," Yad Vashem Studies, vol. Xll, p. 199
14. Ari Bober (ed.), The Other Israel, p. 171


Leopold von Mildenstein (pseudonym, von Lim),
"A Nazi voyages to Palestine"
Der Angriff (The Attack), (Berlin), 9/27/34.

[Note: Among other things, this first article in the series discussed Vladimir Jabotinsky and his "Zionist-Revisionist" followers. Today they are primarily divided between the Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Kadima Party of Ehud Olmert. It testified to a singular truth of the 30s: Everyone, Nazis, Fascists, leftists, other Zionists, saw Zionist-Revisionism as fascist. - LB]

On the liner "Moses," a special steamer for Jewish emigrants to Palestine, the Promised Land, a Nazi travels alone, and there observes villages, cities, factories and children's' homes. On his journalistic trip to Jaffa, he gets aquainted with the Jewish immigrants, the difficulties in their travels and the hopes which they have for their new home. On this voyage to Jaffa, most are admitted into the country and keep their passports.


A motor boat comes swiftly towards us, the feared passport commissioners. The captain, the 1st officer, the commissary, the doctor, all are ready for the reception. One must be on good terms with the passport commission. First one drinks a glass together, for strength, so that everything may go OK. If the commission denies an immigrant entry, the shipping company must take him back to Trieste. If he still has money, then they can try to get him to pay for the return trip. But if he has nothing, then they must bring him back without payment. That they wish to avoid.

The commission is led by an Englishman, but the real passport inspectors are Palestinian Jews. The great choice begins. Naturally it goes by classes. He who has paid the most, gets in first. Those who have their passports stamped enter the boats with a light heart. To be sure, they are not quiet in the golden freedom. They must first go to the quarantine station, to customs, and then, after three days, return to the quarantine physician. But that is taken very easily, if everything works out fine.


We others, who want to go on to Haifa, have time for a rest. In the meantime, the 2nd officer got rid of his freight. That is not so simple. When some herrings are hanging over the boat, one of the containers falls from the winch's wire net into the boat. The cover comes off and the herrings learn to fly. The fast hands of the Arabs catch them quickly and, since they don't want to voluntarily return to the tub, one of the brown men jumps on the container and, under the forceful kicking of his bare feet, the herrings give in. The cover is closed.

When the steward, with his big cowbell, gongs for lunch, the ship starts moving again with a northward course for Haifa, again gliding along the coast. The light brown sand of the steep dunes conceals the fertile coastal land which lies behind. Only occasionally we see a few palm trees. Then comes the wild surf surging onto the steep rocks of the ruins of Atlet. Behind them is Mount Carmel. It is after 4 PM and we are approaching the Haifa mole.


There is an entirely different picture than the one in the morning. Mount Carmel falls steeply almost into the harbor. Oaks and pines cover the sloops. At the end, lies a cloister with a light tower, the true sign of Haifa.

To the left of the harbor mole lies the industry of Haifa. A large lighthouse shines over here. Cement works stretch their constantly bellowing gray smokestacks to the blue sky.

The most notable houses of the city have already climbed along the ridge of the mountain. The air must be wonderful. Here below, in spite of the water, it is unbearably hot. The insect swarms seemed to have only been waiting for us. They come in quantities towards us. Their sting carries the Papadadschia, a nasty fever. Their buzzing, much higher in tone then the ordinary mosquito, sounds around us.

Haifa is the only harbor protected by nature on the east coast of the Mediterranean. A strong stone mole goes around the harbor. Mighty cranes stand at the pier. One calls Palestine England's portal to India. Then Haifa is the key to this portal. Here is the only protected harbor on the East Coast. Here will be the greatest airport of the East. Crossroad of the lines from Cape Town and India. Here is the end of the massive pipeline to the Mosul oil fields in Iraq. Here is the terminal of the "all-British railroad," which would connect Haifa with Baghdad and Basra, thus tying together the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. And if one should not build this railroad, because today a highway would be more advantageous, so one would have a beginning of this road, which never leaves English protection, and today already basically exists.

The "Martha Washington" is tied to the pier, and the commission comes on board again. I stay on board overnight. My car, which properly has spent the entire trip on board, must be registered. The civil servants aren't there. So, tomorrow, tomorrow!


That is the oriental ointment for all impatient people. When the Arab wants to say something polite to somebody, he says "bukra, insha' allah!" Tomorrow, God willing. If nothing happens tomorrow, God apparently didn't want it. I wait. Besides me, there is also an immigrant Jewish family, that has stayed on board, with the other passengers. Their papers not quite in order. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, passengers for the return trip have come on board. We sit, lonely, in the dining room.

My opposite, a young Palestinian, wears a badge on his lapel. A small seven-armed Menorah. We get into a conversation. He is a Trumpeldor-man. They are followers of a Russian Jewish leader, Trumpeldor, who fell in battle, here in Palestine, shortly after the war, in the fight against the Arabs. He had been a leader of the Jewish Legion. His supporters now represent the Fascist group among the Jews. Radical Nationalists, they are adverse to any kind of compromise on questions of Jewish nationalism. Their political party is the "Revisionists." Their leader, Jabotinsky, is the "enfant terrible" of the Zionist Congresses. He cannot forgive the English who, contrary to their promises at the end of the war, disarmed the Jewish Legion in Palestine, instead of having it protect the country. Thus, he is fighting with the English as well as the Arabs. His
fighting troopers are uniformed. Khaki pants and chocolate-colored shirts. In addition, they wear shoulder bandoliers. Stars on their shoulders are the signs of their allegiance. On this basis the Jewish self-protection in the country is recruited. And the Jews sometimes need this because the interests of the English are not always the interests of the Jews.


I step onto the promenade deck. The steamer is almost empty. Most officers and men are on leave. The steamer, to be sure, only departs tomorrow afternoon. At the gangplank stand Arabic soldiers. The pier is constantly carefully guarded. Even when a steamer arrived, no one could go in the vicinity. Even calling from on board to the pier and the other way was strictly prohibited. He who is on board is in a different world. If some wise guy dares to yell to his acquaintances or family on board, then immediately Arab soldiers rush towards him and swing their batons with threats.

When I again crossed the strictly watched gangplank, then I noticed an Arabic soldier, who winked his eye. As I, full of expectation and astonishment, look at him, he walks ahead of me. Then he turns the next corner of the deck. When I get there, he winks at me, secretively. Finally I become curious and follow him. A second Arab has joined us. He goes around a few corners down a dark stairway. They want to meet with me in the darkness between decks. What is going on? One of them can only speak Arabic. The other speaks bad English. With much eye-winking and gestures, I am asked if I'm allowed off board.

"Why do you want to know that?"

"Well, perhaps there is still a possibility to get into the country." Boats, good friends on shore, darkness. The tender hint of baksheesh cannot be misunderstood.

Therefore I can imagine smuggling people is a good business. If such a poor devil of an immigrant being sent back by the commission faces only the trip back, he must be miserable. The company takes his last money for the return trip. Must he not be open to temptation? Over there, only a few meters away, lies the promised land. There nobody will look for him. With the money left, he will get along. He agrees to the offer and pays. He understands clearly that he risks his life. If the boat is seen, it will be shot at by the harbor watch. But otherwise, he is then free. Who will look for a vanished Jew? I make it clear to my "helpers" that, unfortunately, I could not accept the offer. Fear that I might betray them, suspicion, anger, now show in their eyes. I quiet their fears and retreat slowly back into the light from the lamps.


The morning rises with the harbor astir. My car is now hauled by a crane. With much straining and little help, the Arab porters accomplished the maneuver. Afterwards they want their baksheesh, their tip. And then its a matter of finishing the formalities with the car. I have, so to speak, good luck in Palestine. But I don't know yet if one will ask for custom money. The service centers lie here and there, in the old harbor, partly in the new. Between them there is ten minutes of running and tripping through sand and stones, dust and sand blowing, there and back. That makes me warm, but I have my visa stamps together. The money demanded is small, hardly a pound sterling.

The rest of the gasoline is still there. The luggage must go through customs, then to the car. The harbor longshoremen are organized. A leader watches out. But in spite of that, one is still taken advantage of. If it would go as the carriers want, then two people would rather carry one piece of luggage, instead of the other way around. One group carries the luggage to the customs. One of them pretends to be the overseer and asks for special baksheesh, which he claims. Then he cashes it immediately. He must, of course, go away, suddenly. Soon one notices why. The luggage is hardly at the customs, when they all want their money and disappear. In the meantime, other ones have grabbed the controlled pieces, and I can just about prevent one of the Arabs from putting them into a wagon which, naturally, he operates. In spite of this, naturally, he
wants the agreed upon money, plus baksheesh. It comes to a difference of opinion, and the father of the money soon becomes the grandfather of cheapness. He who has never was in the orient cannot appreciate the quarreling and vile manner of this dirty horde. I am glad that I have saved myself and my car, and can disappear thru the harbor gate.

Gas pumps! Gasoline pumps are almost nonexistent. Gasoline, mostly Shell, is sold in 18 kilogram canisters and is directly put into the gas tank. It is much cheaper then in our country, but certainly much dirtier, in spite of the canister. Auto traffic is much less significant than in Europe. One very often sees cars with German licenses. Palestine is completely motorized. The main roads were built after the war by the English. So therefore one can use any kind of car for city and overland traffic. One sees different kinds, but mostly American.


Edward Mortimer, "Contradiction, collusion and controversy,"
The Times (London), 2/11/84.

Zionism in the Age of the Dictators
by Lenni Brenner

Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that "each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews"?

No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.

And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but republished as late as 1936: "The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline"?

Not in Der Stürmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer Hatzair.

As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited self-hatred in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was inevitable and even in a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of Israel.

It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join the war on Germany's side in 1941, in the hope of establishing "the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich." Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to join.

That fact gives an extra edge of topicality to what would in any case be a highly controversial study of the Zionist record in the heyday of European fascism by Lenni Brenner, an American Trotskyist writer who happens also to be Jewish. It is short (250 pages), crisp and carefully documented. Mr Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler's; he is careful also to put on record the opposition to such policies within the Zionist movement.

In retrospect these activities have been defended as a distasteful but necessary expedient to save Jewish lives. But Brenner shows that most of the time this aim was secondary. The Zionist leaders wanted to help young, skilled and able-bodied Jews to emigrate to Palestine. They were never in the forefront of the struggle against fascism in Europe.

That in no way absolves the wartime Allies for their callous refusal to make any serious effort to save European Jewry. As Brenner says, "Britain must be condemned for abandoning the Jews of Europe"; but, "it is not for the Zionists to do it."

[Note: Edward Mortimer retired in December 2006 as Director of Communications, Executive Office of the Secretary General, United Nations.]

from Jim O'Brien :
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007
Subject: [haw-info] HAW news

Two items from Historians Against the War (HAW):
1.  The HAW Steering Committee has endorsed a proposal, the "Iraq Moratorium," that has gotten increasing attention among anti-war activists.  It calls for an escalating series of decentralized local actions on the third Friday of every month starting Friday, Sept. 21.  The idea is being circulated by individuals, but United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the broad-based anti-war coalition that HAW belongs to, supports it.
The Moratorium web site is at http://iraqmoratorium.org/ .   An article in the on-line Nation by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith gives essential background regarding the Moratorium and the fall 1969 Vietnam Moratorium, which inspired the current proposal: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070702/brechersmith
2.  The latest mailing fro
m the History News Network has a lengthy interview with Carolyn "Rusti" Eisenberg, a founding member of HAW and a member of our Steering Committee, providing her historical perspective on the Iraq War and the movement against it.  The interview is at http://hnn.us/articles/39785.html